Recidivism of paroled murderers as a factor in the utility of life imprisonment

Anderson, John L.

doi:10.1080/10345329.2019.1605870

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These conclusions are in line with what we would expect from the deterrence literature, which indicates that certainty of punishment is more important than its severity and that increasing already lengthy prison terms is not an effective way to fight crime (Nagin, 2013;Travis et al, 2014). They are also in line with what we would expect from the research indicating that both older inmates who are released and paroled lifers have extremely low recidivism rates (Advisory Committee on Geriatric and Seriously Ill Inmates, 2005;Anderson, 2019;California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2013;Justice Policy Institute, 2018;Mauer et al, 2004;Millemann et al, 2017;Rosenfeld et al, 2005; State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, 2016; Weisberg et al, 2011). Given LWOP's unique status as a sort of "semantically disguised" death sentence (Villaume, 2005, p. 266) or "death by incarceration" (see Gross, 2019), however, it was not clear whether the wider deterrence literature or the more specific death penalty literature was more applicable to LWOP.…”

Section: Policy Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…When it comes to incapacitation, one study found that after being released from prison, more than half of offenders returned to the criminal trajectory on which they had been prior to being incarcerated (Bhati & Piquero, 2008), which suggests that incarceration serves an important incapacitating role.The data also consistently indicate, however, that inmates serving life terms are comparatively well behaved (Cunningham & Sorensen, 2006;Sorensen & Reidy, 2018 and that upon release, older offenders and paroled lifers are extremely unlikely to re-offend (Advisory Committee on Geriatric and Seriously Ill Inmates, 2005;Anderson, 2019;California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2013;Justice Policy Institute, 2018;Mauer, King, & Young, 2004;Millemann, Bowman-Rivas, & Smith, 2017;Rosenfeld, Wallman, & Fornango, 2005;State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, 2016;van Zyl Smit & Appleton, 2019;Weisberg, Mukamal, & Segall, 2011, pp. 282-285).…”

Section: Incarceration and Crime: Theoretical And Empirical Overviewmentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is life without parole an effective way to reduce violent crime? An empirical assessment

Kleinstuber

Coldsmith

2020

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary: By taking advantage of data published by the Sentencing Project to analyze whether states that use life without parole (LWOP) more often experience lower violent crime rates or greater reductions in violent crime, this study is the first to empirically assess the crimereducing potential of LWOP sentences. The results suggest that LWOP might produce a small absolute reduction in violent crime but that it is no more effective than life with parole. Policy Implications: Despite reductions in the use of the death penalty, LWOP has expanded dramatically-and at a much faster rate-over the last quarter century. This expansion has come at great financial and human costs and has not been distributed equally throughout the population. As such, the public policy debate over the use of LWOP is likely to intensify. Yet, to date, there have been no empirical assessments of LWOP's efficacy to inform this debate.This study begins to fill this gap in our knowledge, and the results, if replicated, suggest that the use of LWOP should be either scaled back or eliminated. K E Y W O R D Sdeterrence, incapacitation, life without parole, sentencing policy, violent crime Over the last several decades, life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences have proliferated in the United States. In 1970, only seven states even authorized LWOP (Nellis, 2013), but by 2016, only Alaska did not have an explicit LWOP statute (Nellis, 2017). Even more recently, while the use of the formal death penalty has been in decline for the past two decades (Death Penalty Information Center, 2018), the size of the LWOP population has exploded at a rate that far surpasses the decline in death sentences so that many who were never at risk of an execution are now being sentenced to die in prison (Henry, 2012). Since 1992, the number of inmates serving LWOP has more than quadrupled (Nellis

show abstract

Section: Policy Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Incarceration and Crime: Theoretical And Empirical Overviewmentioning

confidence: 88%

Is life without parole an effective way to reduce violent crime? An empirical assessment

Kleinstuber

Coldsmith

2020

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although not in such emotional tones, however, using no less reasoned arguments, proponents of the introduction of life imprisonment assess its appropriateness and effectiveness in different ways [21,22]. The ideas of introducing life imprisonment into the system of criminal punishment find support not only in Russia, mainly as an effective measure to isolate especially dangerous criminals [3]. However, most of the arguments in favor of life imprisonment are heard when discussing the adequate replacement of the death penalty [23].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, according to the results of the study of the institution of parole from serving the sentence. Given the absence of such practice in Russia, it is possible to do so only by analyzing foreign sources that examine the recidivism rate of persons released on parole from life imprisonment [3,4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life imprisonment: a relic of the past or dira recessitas

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existence of life imprisonment in the criminal legislation of Russia is assessed ambiguously both by representatives of Russian science and by foreign analysts. This problem is many-sided and ambiguous in its content. Its solution depends on a large number of variables, sometimes independent of the subject of analysis. These include trends in criminal policy, the state of crime in the state, and the related “punitive claims” of the population. The balance of Domestic and International Interests in ensuring Human Rights is the key idea in analyzing life imprisonment from the perspective of historical viability or reality. The purpose of the research was to clarify the place and role of life imprisonment in the current system of criminal punishment based on the analysis of doctrinal approaches, the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the European Court of Human Rights, and statistical data. The work is based on the use of such general scientific methods of research as dialectical, statistical, comparative-legal and hermeneutic. The above methods are used in interaction to obtain a synergistic effect. In the course of the study, the “deterrent” mechanism of the most severe punishment in the criminal system was found to be sufficient. It is determined that life imprisonment is a necessary measure to ensure social justice, albeit cruel, but appropriate in today’s society.

show abstract